Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_stop_integration_entry

Destructive

Stops the external resource tied to an integration entry using its entry_id, halting that resource when it must no longer run.

Instructions

Stop the external resource represented by an integration entry.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_stop_integration_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description's only addition is that the effect lands on an 'external resource', which hints at remote side effects but says nothing about reversibility, prerequisites, or whether start_integration_entry restores the state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key concept (external resource) is placed prominently. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented identifier parameter, the definition leaves out the reversal path, the entry_id semantics, and the distinction from sibling stop/shutdown/delete tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter entry_id is documented nowhere. The description does not explain what an 'entry' is or where entry_id comes from, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Stop' plus 'external resource represented by an integration entry' identifies the action and target, but 'stop' is not distinguished from the near-synonymous siblings nexterm_shutdown_integration_entry, nexterm_start_integration_entry, and nexterm_delete_entry. An agent reading only this sentence cannot tell which of three plausible tools to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus shutdown_integration_entry, start_integration_entry, or delete_entry, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools